ARTS1311 Reading #4

Reading Questions:

  1. How is Warhol able to turn in “off” and based upon the article does he not care about the work?
  • Warhol can approach art the way he does because he views it through a different lens than most other artists. He can appear “off” because he does not have to invest his deepest self into his work (in fact, he claims to lack a deeper self entirely). That isn’t to say that he doesn’t care about his work. He cares, but not in the same way that many other artists do. Warhol seems to see his work as more of a means to an end and as such is not personally invested in it, making it seem as though he doesn’t care about his work.
  1. Why is the article relevant to the last project?
  • The last project was about trying to express something through a black and white picture using only lighting and camera angles. We were not allowed to qualify our pictures beforehand and had to let them speak for themselves. None of our pictures really “meant” anything – rather they simply evoked an emotional state. This relates to the article in that Warhol’s philosophy also has an element of meaninglessness. To Warhol, art is self-expressive. It does not need to mean anything; it doesn’t need to have some higher purpose. In Warhol’s view, art exists only for its own sake or as a means to a simple and mundane end.

Personal Reflection

  1. Do you become self-conscious of your ideas?
  • In a word, sometimes. It really depends on how much time and effort I put in to coming up with the idea. I would be more inclined to feel self-conscious of an idea that put several hours of work into when compared to an idea that took me twenty minutes to come up with. It also really depends on whether or not I think the idea is a good idea or not. If I know it’s not very good, I won’t feel very offended when people agree with me. On the other hand, if I believe that my idea is a good one and someone disagrees I’m much more likely to feel offended.
  1. What do you think of the nothing-to-lose attitude? What are it’s pros and cons?
  • I think that the nothing-to-lose attitude has merit if taken to a certain extent. I think that, at its core, this attitude is a beneficial one in that it serves as a way to deal with emotional stress and uncertainty. However, Warhol seems to take the attitude to the extent that “everything is meaningless”. I find this outlook extremely irritating, as it flies in the face of everything I hold to be true. As such, Warhol’s particular interpretation of this attitude is extremely distasteful to me. I think that the pros of this attitude exist as long it does reach Warhol’s level. If it does, the attitude acquires more cons than pros and becomes undesirable.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *